The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01756-2

MODERN INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY

Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of several

powertrain types for cars and buses in France for two driving cycles:
“worldwide harmonized light vehicle test procedure” cycle and urban
cycle
Anne Bouter 1 & Emmanuel Hache 1,2 & Cyprien Ternel 1 & Sandra Beauchet 1

Received: 22 May 2019 / Accepted: 13 April 2020

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Purpose Environmental assessments in the transportation sector are often lacking in transparency and completeness. In this
article, the environmental trade-offs in road passenger transportation between conventional vehicles and electrified vehicles are
compared, using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. Hence, the relevance of a massive electrification approach can be
questioned. Assessing a set of current midsize passenger cars and buses allows for investigation of potential environmental
issues. This is the first detailed LCA concerning several hybridization levels for cars and buses, and it is based on real consump-
tion data for two traffic conditions.
Methods We focused on the ISO standards (ISO 2006a, b) and analyzed the energy carriers’ life cycle and the vehicle’s life cycle.
The functional unit is clearly defined as the transportation of one passenger over 1 km in specific driving conditions from a point
A to a point B, without prejudice toward the path taken. Vehicle specifications were derived based on the available manufac-
turers’ data, literature, and French Institute of Petroleum (IFPEN) experts. For the use stage, two driving cycles were assessed: the
“worldwide harmonized light vehicles test procedure” (WLTP) cycle and an urban cycle. France was selected as the study area,
and a sensitivity analysis was performed based on a European electricity charging mix for electrified vehicles.
Results and discussion Battery electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) exhibit the highest climate
change (CC) mitigation potential, provided that the electricity mix has low carbon and that the PHEV is used with a fully-charged
battery. With these conditions, PHEVs can perform even better than EVs. In that regard, PHEVs using only a thermic engine
perform the worst in regard to CC indicator. It is also worth mentioning that electric buses are the best solution in urban traffic
conditions for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. Among powertrains, the electrified powertrains are even more important
when performing in urban cycles. For other environmental indicators, such as particulate matter emissions, EVs perform worse
than conventional thermic vehicles.
Conclusions The results underline the importance of considering vehicles’ life cycles for LCA in the transportation sector and the
need for multicriteria environmental analysis. Therefore, electrification of the transportation sector should not be driven by a
single CC indicator, as this may generate potential environmental drawbacks. It is also crucial to adapt public policies to the local
context because the results are highly sensitive to the electricity charging mix.

Keywords Life cycle assessment . Road transportation . Passenger car . Energy mix . Buses . Electrified vehicles . Driving
conditions

Responsible editor: Wulf-Peter Schmidt 1 Introduction

* Anne Bouter In the challenging context of CO2 emissions reduction targets
anne.bouter@ifpen.fr coupled with more stringent vehicle driving test cycles (ICCT
2014), the transportation sector is currently facing major is-
1
IFP Énergies nouvelles, 1-4 av. de Bois Préau, sues in complying with upcoming public policies.
F-92852 Rueil-Malmaison, France Electrification of the transportation sector generally appears
2
EconomiX-CNRS, University of Paris Nanterre, Nanterre, France to be a necessary evolution for reaching the CO2 targets

planned during the 2015 United Nations Climate Change
Conference (COP21) on the Paris agreements. Indeed, in
2015, the transportation sector represented almost a quarter
of Europe’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (European
Commission 2017) and road transportation is responsible for
over 72% of these emissions (European Environment Agency
2019). Passenger cars are responsible for approximately 12%
of the total European Union (EU) emissions of carbon dioxide
(TNO 2016). In the new environmental context, the transpor-
tation standards related to CO2 emissions have been steadily
increased, leading to a first step of setting the European CO2
emissions average fleet target to 130 g of CO2 per kilometer in
2015 (The European Parliament and the Council 2009). At
that time, it represented a reduction of approximately 18%
from the 2007 fleet average of 158.7 g of CO2 per kilometer.
By 2021, the reduction target for all new passenger cars will
be set at approximately 95 g of CO2 per kilometer (The
European Parliament and the Council 2014). This threshold
will drop to 81 g/km (New European Driving Cycle (NEDC)
reference (The Council of the European Communities 1970))
in 2025, and finally, to 66 g/km in 2030. These increasingly
strict thresholds will oblige manufacturers to include more
innovations in their vehicles and engines. In consideration of
the increase in population (United Nations 2017) and corre-
sponding rise in mobility needs in terms of both traffic and
vehicle sizes (Scholl et al. 1996; WBCSD 2001), the passen-
ger transport requirements, expressed in passenger-kilometer
(pkm), are constantly increasing (European Commission
2017). Thus, transportation is one sector in the EU where
GHG emissions requirements continue rising (Meyer et al.
2012), despite the deep technological improvements and re-
sultant fuel efficiency experienced in internal combustion en-
gines (ICE) in recent years. Meeting the EU targets will re-
quire a widespread deployment of low carbon technologies
that cannot be achieved without considering vehicles’ electri-
fication options, such as battery electric vehicles (EVs) or
plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs).
As argued in Bauer et al. (2015), a massive development of
transportation electrification could displace the environmental
impacts from GHG emissions to other environmental burdens,
such as particulate matter (PM) formation, acidification (Ac),
or resource depletion (RD). Furthermore, passenger car elec-
trification is often considered as a zero CO2 emission technol-
ogy with regard to a tank-to-wheel (TTW) assessment, as
defined by the “activities and energy use and emissions asso-
ciated with vehicle operation” (Brinkman et al. 2005).
However, these system boundaries exclude the “energy use
and emissions associated with fuel production” (Brinkman
et al. 2005), defined as well-to-tank (WTT), as well as the
vehicle’s life cycle. Considering only the TTW stage or even
the complete fuel’s life cycle (WTT and TTW, commonly
named well-to-wheel (WTW)) would lead to the potential
transfer of impacts from life cycle stages to other areas. For
Int J Life Cycle Assess
example, any decrease in CO2 emissions during the usage
stage would not avoid the consumption of resources required
for battery production. Therefore, only life cycle assessment
(LCA) as defined by its inner definition (ISO 2006a, b) can
address the entire system: WTT, TTW, and the vehicle’s life
cycle. LCA is also a multicriteria environmental type of anal-
ysis that enables researchers to answer questions related to
potential environmental impacts that differ from the effects
of global warming alone.
The evaluation of the environmental impacts induced by
the electrification of the transportation sector is becoming an
urgent matter, as states, through public policies, are willing to
increase the deployment of EV technologies. Several incen-
tives are being put in place at the consumer and state levels.
For example, in France, a subvention program (ecological
bonus-malus1) has been implemented since 2007 to promote
the purchase of electric cars. A conversion bonus has been
also applied since 2015 for the scrapping of ICE vehicles
registered before January 1, 2006 with diesel engine, and
January 1, 1997 for others (Ministry for Ecological and
Solidarity Transition 2009, 2017). The rationale of this policy
is that electric powertrains do not produce any tailpipe emis-
sions (Sadek 2012) and thus are seen as drastically reducing
GHG emissions (Nemry and Brons 2010). However, in addi-
tion to several practical questions such as those regarding the
deployment of charging stations (and their costs), or the man-
agement of peak hours for supplying electricity,2 other envi-
ronmental issues are neglected. The first is the displacement of
CO2 emissions from TTW to WTT for EVs via energy pro-
duction; another is the increase of the contribution of the ve-
hicle’s production stage to the global life cycle (Tran et al.
2012). This leads to the main conclusion, i.e., that the impacts
of the electrification of the transportation sector have to be
evaluated over the entire life cycle for both the energy carrier
(WTT and TTW) and the vehicle. Yet another issue is the
displacement of the environmental impacts from the environ-
mental LCA categories to other entitles (Chan 2007). Indeed,
while LCA applied to conventional vehicles mainly reveals
the impacts regarding global warming potential (GWP),
Lombardi et al. (2017) showed that EVs give rise to increased
human toxicity and terrestrial acidification. As a consequence,
a GWP indicator alone is insufficient for comparing different
types of vehicles (Nordelöf et al. 2014).
The objective for the passenger transportation sector is to
enable the mobility of citizens and connect people to each
other and to the goods and services of the economy (Scholl
et al. 1996). To do so, the LCA must integrate this objective
within its own functional unit (FU), whose definition, accord-
ing to the ISO standards (ISO 2006a) for LCA studies, is the
1
The vehicle must fulfill several conditions of which a maximum emission
rate of 20 g CO2 eq./km. The amount of the aid is capped at 6000 euros.
2
This issue will not be studied in this article.
Int J Life Cycle Assess
quantified performance of a product, system, or service.
However, environmental studies addressing transport do not
quantify the performance offered by a product or service, but
rather focus on the product or service itself (Nordelöf et al.
2014). For this reason, the current study introduces an appro-
priate FU that accounts for performance through the vehicle
occupation rate and in the context of use via a driving cycle
from a point A to a point B.
This article aims at assessing several powertrains for cars
and buses from an environmental perspective, to determine if
a suggested option can mitigate the impacts of the transporta-
tion sector. This objective is consistent with the public policies
designed to promote electrified vehicles. However, geograph-
ical context and driving conditions could have a major role to
play in a more ecologically friendly choice of transportation.
Indeed, the electricity source is a key parameter and is very
sensitive to the country being studied (Hawkins et al. 2013).
To assess the advantages and drawbacks of the electrifica-
tion of the road passenger transportation sector, we relied on
the LCA methodology to provide robust and relevant environ-
mental results. Following the European recommendations
(JRC-European Commission 2012), environmental impacts
in categories other than GHG emissions are considered.
France is the study area, and French directives were followed.
In the case that French directives were not available, European
directives were used. A sensitivity analysis with a European
electricity charging mix was performed, as electrification per-
formances are geographically dependent (Lombardi et al.
2017). The temporal horizon was the present time, and we
focused on one class of vehicles: the C-segment, defined in
Europe as midsize or medium cars (Commission of the
European communities 1999), and equivalent to compact cars
for the USA and UK. In addition, midsize cars are compared
with buses, as buses must fulfill the same FU criteria for pas-
senger transportation. Various levels of electrification options
have been used for powertrains, based on the new homologat-
ed worldwide harmonized light vehicles test procedure
(WLTP) for midsize cars (ICCT 2014). As a complement to
the WLTP cycle, an “ARTEMIS” urban driving cycle (André
2004) is assessed to compare passenger vehicles and buses.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2
discusses the materials and methodology. Section 3 presents
our main findings, and these findings are discussed in
Section 4. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2 Material and method
2.1 Goal, scope, and products systems
The goal and scope definition is the first step of the LCA,
according to the ISO standards. This step clearly identifies
the objectives of the evaluation.
The purpose of our study is to highlight the trade-offs be-
tween several levels of electrification based on the LCA meth-
odology, in regard to the environmental performances in the
passenger transportation sector. To achieve this goal, seven
midsize architectures were assessed over the WLTP cycle.
In addition, French and European electricity charging mixes
were studied to address the electrification issue. The seven
selected midsize vehicles are representative of the market
and are described in Table 1: an ICE gasoline vehicle, an
ICE diesel vehicle, a mild hybrid electric vehicle (MHEV)
based on a 48-V battery pack network associated with a gas-
oline engine, a full hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) with a high-
voltage network (gasoline engine and power split architec-
ture), a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) with a gasoline
engine, an EV, and an EV with an extended battery capacity
(EV+).
As the study focuses on passenger cars, we also included
buses in the second part of the study. To be consistent from an
LCA perspective, we assessed the performance of the same
seven passenger cars described above in an urban driving
cycle. This allowed us to compare not only two driving cycles
for the same vehicle but also a passenger car solution with a
bus solution, given the geographical offerings of the bus trans-
portation sector in France for the Parisian sector. We based the
comparisons on the hypothesis that the traveled path is the
same for passenger cars and buses. This could be adapted
and/or discussed, according to the city context (Huang and
Levinson 2015).
We considered existing vehicles rather than theoretical
ones because the final goal of this analysis is to show that
there are optimal solutions (or efficient choices) for both con-
sumers and policy makers from an environmental perspective
when, e.g., choosing a passenger transportation solution or
launching public policies.
The vehicles’ specifications are based on the available
manufacturers’ data and French Institute of Petroleum
(IFPEN) research and development3 (R&D). This leads to
the following breakdown for the vehicle’s weight: vehicle
glider4 with options and gearbox, thermic engine, electric mo-
tor and electric generator, and battery. The raw material com-
ponents’ splits of the vehicle’s glider are based on the envi-
ronmental improvement of products (IMPRO) Car II report of
the JRC scientific and technical reports (Nemry et al. 2009), in
a percentage corresponding to the medium gasoline car for the
seven assessed cars. The buses’ raw material components are
based on manufacturer data and IFPEN R&D. The materials
choices and their operation are based on the Ecoinvent process
“glider, passenger car” for private cars and “bus, production
3
IFPEN technological offer regarding sustainable mobility is structured
around hybrid and electric powertrains, IC powertrains, and connected
vehicles.
4
Vehicle’s glider encompasses vehicle body and wheels.

Table 1 Characteristics of the seven studied passenger cars
Internal ICE Mild hybrid
combustion diesel electric vehicle
engine-gasoline (ICEd) (MHEV)
(ICEg)
Powertrain Fuel vector
Thermic Gasoline x x
Diesel x
Electric Electricity
RER (Europe)” for buses (Spielmann et al. 2007).
Extrapolations and assumptions have been made, according
to experts. These are described in Table 5.
The energy consumption values for electricity or natural
gas in vehicle production are based on the IMPRO Car I report
of the JRC scientific and technical reports (Nemry et al. 2008)
for midsize car and on the Ecoinvent process for buses.
Special attention has been paid to each vehicle’s end of life,
as it is an important stage (Kanari et al. 2003). This is even
more true for those with lithium-ion batteries, which are mas-
sively used by car manufacturers (Majeau-Bettez et al. 2011),
and for which the environmental burdens can be important.
Complicating things further, industries have little experience
in managing the end of life of a battery. In addition, this
subject is complex (Schmidt et al. 2004), as it integrates issues
related to the dispersive use of metals, their weak availability,
and the existing regulations. Moreover, the potential metals of
interest might only be available in small quantities, unless
special recycling is performed (Gerrard and Kandlikar
2007). As car manufacturers made agreements on this subject
for a French project (PE International AG and Gingko 21
2013), we founded our assumptions on this report, and we
built a realistic scenario for France that satisfies the regulatory
objectives.
We also followed European directives regarding outdated
vehicles and batteries (The European Parliament and the
Council 2000). The end-of-life scenario for vehicles is thus
modeled through a realistic recycling scenario for out-of-date
vehicles in France today, allowing us to reach the goals of the
regulatory rates provided by the European directives (The
European Parliament and the Council 2005, 2006). This leads
to rates per material, which are divided into categories includ-
ing recycling, energy recovery, and landfilling (Table 2).
Further end-of-life data have been added not only within the
French context regarding average collection distances be-
tween sorting centers and materials recovery infrastructures,
but also in the context of energy consumption for material
recycling (ADEME 2008, 2018). A 2010 French collection
rate for obsolete vehicles (69%) was also used, and the dis-
tances from owner to wrecker and from wrecker to grinder
(300 km in total) were considered within the national context.
Int J Life Cycle Assess
Full hybrid Plug-in hybrid Battery EV with
electric vehicle electric vehicle electric extended
(HEV) (PHEV) vehicle (EV) capacity (EV+)
x x
x x x
French waste statistics have been modeled mostly for inciner-
ation (53%) and landfilling (47%) data when missing
(Ministry for Ecological and Solidarity Transition 2014).
Regarding energy carriers, the fossil fuels are modeled
from Ecoinvent data (Frischknecht et al. 2005): the “Petrol,
low-sulfur {Europe without Switzerland}| market for | Alloc
Rec, U” and “Diesel, low-sulfur {Europe without
Switzerland}| market for | Alloc Rec, U.” In the same way,
the electricity mix is the French average mix from the
Ecoinvent database “Electricity, medium voltage {FR}| mar-
ket for | Alloc Rec, U.” This results in approximately 113 g
CO2 eq./kWh for the French electricity mix at the grid.
However, France has a very low carbon electricity mix, owing
to the main primary energy used (nuclear power). This means
that the environmental performances of electrified vehicles are
geographically dependent on the electricity mix. We per-
formed a sensitivity analysis with an average European elec-
tricity mix, ceteris paribus. The Ecoinvent process used is
“Electricity, medium voltage, production UCTE, at grid”
and is representative of a European electricity mix of approx-
imately 531 g CO2 eq./kWh.
The fuel and electricity consumption for the seven passen-
ger cars and the three buses were estimated using IFPEN ve-
hicle simulators based on the Simcenter Amesim™ software.
These conventional, hybrid, and EV simulators were devel-
oped and validated through component and vehicle tests
(Badin et al. 2015; Badin et al. 2013; Da Costa et al. 2012;
Marc et al. 2010). The objective is to assess the energy carrier
consumption in both the WLTP homologated driving cycle
and the Artemis urban cycle (André 2004) for passenger cars
and in an urban Paris-type driving cycle for buses. The WLTP
cycle corresponds to an average speed of 46.6 km per hour
over a distance of 23 km, representing a journey in real con-
ditions. This cycle is based on real driving data and is divided
into four parts with different average speeds: low, medium,
high, and extra high. Each part contains a variety of driving
phases, stops, accelerations, and braking phases. The simula-
tions were used to assess the hybrid consumptions, depending
on the plug-in functionality: sustaining mode (same initial and
final battery states of charge) for the HEV, depleting mode for
the full-battery PHEV, and sustaining mode for the PHEV
Int J Life Cycle Assess
Table 2 Raw materials’ end-of-
life scenario
Ferrous and non-ferrous material
Plastics, rubber, fibers
Glass
Fluids
Paints and others
with an empty battery. Depleting mode is the optimal mode, as
only the electric powertrain is used. We consider that passen-
ger cars are mostly used for commuting between home and
work and that the battery size of these PHEVs allows suffi-
cient autonomy for the driver if the battery is loaded when
needed (Loisel et al. 2014). The opposite case (sustaining
mode with empty battery) assumes that the user does not
charge his/her vehicle and instead uses liquid fossil fuels as
the energy carrier. The PHEV behaves in a manner between
that of an ICE gasoline vehicle and that of a degraded HEV. A
100-km distance was simulated. The Artemis urban driving
cycle is based on real-world driving patterns for Europe. The
simulated urban cycle for buses was set to 10.6 km/h.
The end of life was modeled according to an avoided bur-
den allocation methodology (Nicholson et al. 2009; Allacker
et al. 2017). A vehicle’s end of life is based on manufacturer
data as well as European directives such as The European
Parliament and the Council. The end of life for wheels and
tires is based on the ADEME report of 2017. The end of life
for batteries follows the European directive 2006/66/CE from
The European Parliament and the Council and uses two dif-
ferent technologies from the Ecoinvent database in equal pro-
portion: hydrometallurgical treatment and pyrometallurgical
treatment (Frischknecht et al. 2005).
According to ISO standards, the definition of an FU relies
on the quantified performances of a system of products, with
the intention of finding the reference unit of the LCA (ISO
2006a, b). The reference unit or reference flow is defined as
the measurement of the process outputs necessary to fulfill the
function as expressed by the FU. The function of our system is
the transportation of people from one point to another in cer-
tain traffic conditions. Accordingly, the FU chosen for this
study is the transportation of one person for 1 km in similar
driving conditions, expressed as passenger per kilometer
(p/km). We assumed that the lifetime of the passenger vehicles
was 150,000 km, as in Hawkins et al. (2013), Notter et al.
(2010), Szczechowicz et al. (2012), and Sharma et al.
(2013), considering a lifetime for the vehicles of 10 years
and 15,000 km/year of driving. Buses are assessed over
12 years and 40,000 km/year of driving, leading to
480,000 km according to IFPEN experts. We supposed that
the battery will last 8 years for passenger cars and 6 years for
buses, based on commercial manufacturer guarantees as few
Recycling Energetic recovery Landfilling
95% 5%
50% 30% 20%
90% 10%
50% 50%
40% 60%
in-the-field feedbacks exist as the BEV market is quite recent.
The driving conditions are the WLTP for the comparative
passenger cars LCA and the urban cycle for the comparison
of passenger cars with buses.
To be consistent in the comparative assessment, an occu-
pation rate has been applied for both passenger cars and buses.
The average occupation rate for a car is 1.3 persons and that
for buses is 17.4 persons, according to the General
Commissioner for Sustainable Development (2016) and the
European Environment Agency (2008). The occupation rate
seems to be an influencing factor, as its range encompasses
between 1 and 5 persons for C-segment cars and between 15
and 103 persons per bus in the average upper boundary for
buses (OMNIL 2011). A sensitivity analysis performed on the
lower and upper boundaries of occupation rate for both trans-
portation modes showed that the three buses’ architectures
have the highest impacts for the lower boundary scenario.
The trade-off lies between 7 persons and 28 persons in the
bus, to be competitive with the cars having the greatest impact
on climate change, e.g., PHEV gasoline (100% thermic), and
least impact, e.g., PHEV gasoline (100% elec.). For the oppo-
site trend, the results are similar to those presented here for the
average occupation rate, except for the ICE diesel bus which
ranks at fourth place.
Regarding the system boundary, the analysis addresses
both energy vector life cycles, i.e., a WTW assessment includ-
ing the fuel/energy production (WTT) and the fuel/energy use
(TTW); in that regard, the analysis addresses the entire life
cycle of the vehicles. The life cycle of liquid fossil fuels,
e.g., gasoline and diesel, includes crude oil extraction, trans-
portation, refining, and distribution. For the electricity vector,
we consider the energy sources’ supply, electricity produc-
tion, and the transmission network, including losses. The ve-
hicle’s life cycle encompasses vehicle production, powertrain
(thermic and electric) production, tire production, battery pro-
duction, maintenance, and the end of life, as shown in Fig. 1.
It is worth mentioning that the infrastructures, roads, and
charging stations are not part of our analysis. These elements
should be included for a large-scale deployment study. The
auxiliaries’ consumptions and the emissions from tire wear
and braking have also been excluded, based on the
5
We choose not to include cases in which no passengers were in the bus.

Fig. 1 Simplified life cycle stages
considered for the study
reproducibility of these emissions within the cases. These
should be included to obtain a net value.
The perimeter of the study is France, as the locations for
assembly and usage of the vehicles are in France.
The LCA is conducted with regard to ISO standards and is
modeled with SimaPro 8.0.4.30® software. The main data-
base used is Ecoinvent version 3.1, with the system models
“allocation, recycled content.”
The emissions of pollutants during the use phase are based
on worldwide emissions standards for passenger cars, i.e.,
Euro6b (2008) and the assessed consumption provided by
the IFPEN simulator. We also added a multiplication factor
of seven for NOx emissions for diesel passenger cars, in ac-
cordance with several test results regarding real driving emis-
sions (RDE) (European Commission 2018). This “seven times
coefficient” has been approved by the French, German,
Netherlands, and UK governments.
The low heating values (LHV) used for energy carriers are
chosen in line with JRC data (JEC-Joint Research Center-
EUCAR-CONCAWE collaboration 2014), as well as the
quantities of CO2 emitted during fuel combustion.
2.2 Life cycle inventory
The goals and scope description of our study described above
allowed us to perform a quantitative analysis of all flows,
material, and energy, in and out, in the described process.
The main assumptions and detailed data are presented in this
section.
The WTT stage focuses on the production of the energy
carrier, from its source through its delivery to the vehicle. The
Ecoinvent database version 3.1. was used (Frischknecht et al.
2005). We used the processes “Petrol, low-sulfur {Europe
Int J Life Cycle Assess
without Switzerland}| market for | Alloc Rec, U” and
“Diesel, low-sulfur {Europe without Switzerland}| market
for | Alloc Rec, U.” They are not representative of the current
fuel delivered at filling stations, as we did not include the 5%
ethanol or 7% biodiesel, but we decided not to implement
added biases in the analysis with biofuel compositions in the
fuels at the pump. This will be addressed in another ongoing
study.
The WTT stage for PHEVs and EVs implies an electricity
supply. The French average mix from the Ecoinvent database
has been used, i.e., “Electricity, medium voltage {FR}| market
for | Alloc Rec, U,” in the same way. Our objective does not
consider consumers’ habits and thus does not presume the
charging profile of the electricity.
Tables 3, 4 and 5 present the characteristics of the studied
vehicles. The vehicles are modeled based on data relative to an
ICE gasoline vehicle, which were collected by IFPEN experts
on a wide range of information. Other studied vehicles have
been duplicated from this ICE gasoline vehicle and have been
customized based on models and expert opinion. This leads to
fictitious vehicles: not commercial vehicles per se, but repre-
sentative of their category, i.e., an average powertrain for
existing vehicles on the market. For example, the PHEV gas-
oline vehicle is derived from the ICE gasoline vehicle glider
with a Prius-type powertrain. The detailed characteristics for
each powertrain are listed in Table 3. This table excludes
battery characteristics, which are detailed in Table 4.
The batteries in this study have been modeled based on
confidential data from ADEME, the French environmental
management agency. They are based on lithium-ion nickel
manganese cobalt (LiNMC) technology, and represent a ho-
mogeneous mix of two industrial technologies, with a 75-Wh/
kg energy density. The battery pack has a 30-kWh energy
Int J Life Cycle Assess

Table 3 Powertrain specifications

Type of vehicle ICE gasoline ICE diesel MHEV 48-V gasoline HEV gasoline PHEV gasoline EV EV+

ICE engine
Maximum power 96 kW 88 kW 96 kW 72 kW 72 kW
Maximum engine speed 6250 rpm 4750 rpm 6250 rpm 5215 rpm 5215 rpm
Maximum torque 229.2 Nm 285.5 Nm 229.2 Nm 142 Nm 142 Nm
Piston displacement 1.198 L 1.6 L 1.198 L 1.798 L 1.798 L
Electric motor
Maximum power 12 kW 70 kW 70 kW 80 kW 80 kW
Maximum engine speed 7000 rpm 18,000 rpm 18,000 rpm 8000 rpm 8000 rpm
Maximum torque 57 Nm 163 Nm 163 Nm 260 Nm 260 Nm
Generator
Maximum power 30 kW 30 kW
Maximum engine speed 9500 rpm 9500 rpm
Maximum torque 163 Nm 163 Nm

capacity for the EV and 60 kWh for the EV+. The battery is
downsized to 8 kWh for the PHEV, 1.3 kWh for the HEV, and
1 kWh for the MHEV 48 V. Details regarding the battery pack
are listed in Table 4.
The GHG emissions related to battery production are ap-
proximately 127 kg CO2 eq./kWh of the modeled battery,
which is within the range of the data in the literature
(Majeau-Bettez et al. 2011; Peters et al. 2017).
The main differences between the two technologies con-
cern the metal used for the battery pack: metal or metal alloy.
The energy consumed per pack is also very different, e.g., one
order of magnitude is equivalent to a factor of ten. At the
battery module level, the quantity of plastic for housing the
battery module also differs, on an order of magnitude. At the
cell level, the macro data are similar in terms of cell weight,
nominal power, and capacity, but differ in the energy used per
cell. The anodes’ materials are similar from one technology to
another and only the contributions of the material weights are
different; similar weights were ultimately found for both ex-
amined anode technologies. For cathodes, the total weight is
approximately 15% different from similar raw material com-
ponents. A comparison with existing data has been made
thanks to other studies: Hao et al. (2017), Kim et al. (2016),
and the literature review of Romare and Dahllöf (2017).
The wheels and tires for passenger cars have been modeled
based on JRC scientific and technical reports (Nemry et al.
2008), for both weights and components. Their lifespan is
assumed to be equal to 40,000 km, regardless of vehicle. A
passenger car is modeled with four wheels and four tires. As
for buses, the wheel and tire weights are based on manufac-
turer data, but the raw material composition is the same as that
for passenger cars. The lifespan is also considered to be
40,000 km, and the buses are modeled with six wheels and
six tires.
For the raw material composition of the glider for passen-
ger vehicles, the data are modeled based on the medium gas-
oline car assessed in the IMPRO CAR II report (Nemry et al.
2009). Starting from this breakdown, some adjustments are
carried out with the help of automotive experts.
The bus composition is modeled using the Ecoinvent v3.1.
database, and confidential French manufacturer data. This
leads to the following glider composition for the bus, as pre-
sented in Table 5.
The energy consumption for passenger vehicle production,
in natural gas and electricity, is based on the IMPRO CAR I
report (Nemry et al. 2008) for a midsize car. The quantity of
energy for the production of buses is based on a related
Ecoinvent process (Spielmann et al. 2007).
The TTW stage corresponds to the use phase, where the
energy carrier is consumed to propel the vehicle. An in-house
vehicle simulator based on Simcenter Amesim™ software
(Badin et al. 2013, 2015) is used to assess the vehicle’s fuel

Table 4 Batteries’ specifications

Type of vehicle MHEV 48-V HEV gasoline PHEV gasoline EV EV+
gasoline

Energy capacity 1 kWh 1.3 kWh 8 kWh 30 kWh 60 kWh

State of charge operating window 70% 60% 60% 85% 85%
 Int J Life Cycle Assess

Table 5 Raw material

composition (%) for gliders, Materials Proxy Ecoinvent process Composition (%) of the Composition (%) of
passenger vehicles, and buses glider (passenger car) the glider (bus)

Iron Cast iron 9.5 9.6

Pig iron Pig iron 4.7
Steel Steel, low alloyed 40.9 0.21
Steel, chromium steel 18/8, hot 6.43
rolled
High-strength Reinforcing steel 9.8 42.32
steels
Copper Copper 0.9 1.02
Zinc Zinc 0.2 –
Lead Lead 0.7 0.8
Aluminum Aluminum, cast alloy 9.0 15.57
Magnesium Magnesium 0.2 –
Other metals Steel, chromium steel 18/8, hot 0.4 –
rolled
PP Polypropylene, granulate 9.0 –
PE Polyethylene, high density, 2.4 –
granulate
PA Glass fiber reinforced plastic, 0.4 –
polyamide, injection molded
ABS Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene 0.8 –
copolymer
PUR Polyurethane, flexible foam 2.3 –
PET Polyethylene terephthalate, 0.1 –
granulate, amorphous
Other plastics Polypropylene, granulate 2.0 –
Rubber/elastomer Synthetic rubber 2.1 –
Oil Lubricating oil 0.6 0.7
Refrigerant Refrigerant R134a 0.05 0.02
Other fluids Propylene glycol, liquid 2.6 0.2
Glass Flat glass, uncoated 2.4 4.57
Textile Polyethylene terephthalate, 1.0
granulate, amorphous
Other Alkyd paint, white, without water, 3.0 0.3
in 60% solution state
Rubber/elastomer Synthetic rubber – 3.8
Sulfuric acid Sulfuric acid – 0.32
Rock wool Stone wool, packed – 3.7
Brass Brass – 0.03
Pitch Pitch – 0.5
PEHD Polyethylene, high density, – 5.16
granulate

and electricity consumption, during both the WLTP and urban
driving cycles, and for passenger cars and buses. Pollutant
emissions are recorded according to the Euro6b norms for
CO, NOx, PM, and hydrocarbon compounds (HC) for gaso-
line. The Euro6b HC emissions norms for diesel vehicles were
extrapolated based on the Euro6c norm and future Euro7 norm
(IFPEN experts) as only the total HC + NOx was provided in
the standards. CO2 correlates with fuel consumption, unlike
other pollutant emissions. This leads to the same values of
pollutant emissions, regardless of the vehicle’s liquid fuel
consumption.
An additional emission coefficient for NOx for diesel pas-
senger cars has been added based on the requirements of sev-
eral European member states, to thereby properly assess real
driving emissions.
In regard to bus pollutant emissions, the Euro6 diesel heavy
trucks norm has been followed, considering the bus driving
cycle and the use of the crankshaft per kilometer. These
Int J Life Cycle Assess

simulations result in fuel and electricity consumptions that are Meteorological Organization 1999), and PM/respiratory inor-
linked with pollutant emissions. ganics (PM) (Rabl and Spadaro 2004). For classification II,
From the simulations, it is observed that the batteries of the we included ionizing radiation, human health oriented (IR-
EVs—30 kWh and 60 kWh for passenger cars—guarantee a HH) (Frischknecht et al. 2000), photochemical ozone forma-
daily home-work trip without the need to charge the battery tion (POF) as applied in ReCiPe (van Zelm et al. 2008), Ac
during the day. For buses, the 170-kWh capacity of the battery (Seppälä et al. 2006; Posch et al. 2008), terrestrial eutrophica-
requires a midday charging. tion (Eu terr.) (Seppälä et al. 2006; Posch et al. 2008), aquatic
Two simulation models were used to estimate the hybrid eutrophication (Eu-aq.) as implemented in ReCiPe (Mark
consumptions, depending on the plug-in functionality: sus- Goedkoop et al. 2008), and RD (mineral and fossil), based
taining mode (same initial and final battery state of charge) on the Centre for Environmental Studies (CML) 2002 meth-
for the HEV and depleting mode for the full-battery PHEV. odology (Guinée 2002).
As we do not assume consumer behaviors for the charging
PHEVs, we perform a sensitivity analysis for a PHEV with
an empty battery. These are the two extreme profiles for
PHEVs, i.e., full battery and empty battery, and are used to 3 Results: life cycle impact assessment
cover every possible consumer’s behavior.
For the maintenance stage, within the FU of 150,000 km 3.1 Overview
for a passenger car and 480,000 km for a bus, the tires were
supposed to be replaced 4 times for cars, and 12 times for The results for passenger midsize cars performing the WLTP
buses. cycle are presented in Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, to Fig. 10, and
The battery pack is considered to be replaced for both pas- details concerning the contributions of each stage are available
senger cars and buses according to lifetime assumptions, in in Table 6. The figures present the results for both the French
different proportions owing to different lifetimes: 8 years over electricity mix and the European mix, which are only used as
10 years for passenger cars resulting in 1.25 battery; and energy carriers during the TTW stage.
6 years over 12 years for buses, resulting in two batteries. PHEV gasoline (100% elec.) refers to the depleting mode
The end-of-life stage has been modeled according to the for the full battery, whereas PHEV gasoline (100% thermic)
avoided impacts methodology (Allacker et al. 2017), consid- refers to the mode for the empty battery.
ering the environmental impacts related to upgrade processes If we consider the overall performances of electrified vehi-
and the avoided impacts of recovery materials. cles as compared with thermic ones, it is not evident, based on
The end of life for a passenger car has been accounted for the selected environmental indicators, that all electrified
in accordance with French directives (The European
Parliament and the Council 2000), car manufacturers’ experi-
ences, and present technologies. This leads to a specific end of
life per material after having considered collection, transpor-
tation to the upgrading sites, and application rates at each step.
For batteries, a 50/50 hypothesis for end-of-life treatment is
applied for the hydrometallurgical Ecoinvent process and py-
rometallurgical Ecoinvent process. A minimal collection rate
of 45% has been considered, as specified by the European
Parliament and the Council (2006).
We choose to quantify the potential environmental impacts
using the recommended methodology of the European
Commission, i.e., the so-called International Reference Life
Cycle Data System (ILCD) midpoint 2011 methodology
(JRC-European Commission 2012). The chosen impact cate-
gories correspond to classification I: “recommended and sat-
isfactory,” or II: “recommended but in need of some improve-
ments,” as established by the European Commission. Indeed,
we believe that classification III: “recommended, but to be
applied with caution” is no longer mature enough to draw
Fig. 2 Potential impacts on climate change of one person transportation
conclusions. Thus, we only present the following recommend- over 1 km for worldwide harmonized light vehicles test procedure
ed midpoints for the classification I: climate change (CC) (WLTP) cycle for midsize cars, present time, and French and European
(IPCC 2007), ozone depletion potential (ODP) (World electricity mixes

Fig. 3 Potential impacts on ozone depletion potential of one person
transportation over 1 km for WLTP cycle for midsize cars, present
time, and French and European electricity mixes
vehicles show better performances than thermic vehicles.
Indeed, electrified vehicles have advantages regarding CC
(Fig. 2) in most powertrain configurations, but for other envi-
ronmental indicators, the success highly depends on the level
of electrification.
A focus on the electrified vehicles using electricity high-
lights that the PHEV, using 100% electricity as the energy
carrier, has lower impacts than EVs for global warming
Fig. 4 Potential impacts on particulate matter emissions of one person
transportation over 1 km for WLTP cycle for midsize cars, present time,
and French and European electricity mixes
Int J Life Cycle Assess
Fig. 5 Potential impacts on human health caused by ionizing radiation,
of one person transportation over 1 km for WLTP cycle for midsize cars,
present time, and French and European electricity mixes
potential, as well as for OD (Fig. 3), PM (Fig. 4), IR-HH
(Fig. 5), Ac (Fig. 7), Eu-aq (Fig. 9), and RD (Fig. 10). The
PHEV using 100% of liquid fossil fuel as the energy carrier
appears to have the same profile as a gasoline ICE for the
WTW stage and a PHEV profile for the vehicle life cycle. In
that regard, this leads to a somewhat nonsensical use of this
powertrain and raises questions regarding consumer behavior.
Fig. 6 Potential impacts on photochemical ozone formation of one
person transportation over 1 km for WLTP cycle for midsize cars,
present time, and French and European electricity mixes
Int J Life Cycle Assess

Fig. 7 Potential impacts on acidification of one person transportation Fig. 9 Potential impacts on aquatic eutrophication of one person
over 1 km for WLTP cycle for midsize cars, present time, and French transportation over 1 km for WLTP cycle for midsize cars, present
and European electricity mixes time, and French and European electricity mixes

For some indicators, thermic vehicles perform better than

3.2 Passenger cars performing a worldwide
or equivalent to electrified ones, as is the case for the impacts
harmonized light vehicles test procedure driving
on IR-HH (Fig. 5), Ac (Fig. 7), Eu-aq (Fig. 9), or RD (Fig. 10).
cycle: French electricity charging mix
It is important to note that environmental performances are
not always linked to the level of electrification, as might have
The results for CC (Fig. 2) vary among the different
been expected. Indeed, the results show that it is not evident
powertrains using electricity as the energy carrier, with lower
that the more the vehicles are electrified, the more environ-
impacts than those using liquid fossil fuels. This is mostly
mentally friendly they are.

Fig. 8 Potential impacts on terrestrial eutrophication of one person Fig. 10 Potential impacts on resource depletion (mineral, fossil, and
transportation over 1 km for WLTP cycle for midsize cars, present renewables) of one person transportation over 1 km for WLTP cycle for
time, and French and European electricity mixes midsize cars, present time, and French and European electricity mixes
 Int J Life Cycle Assess

Table 6 Total potential environmental impacts for the selected indicators for the transportation of one person over 1 km for worldwide harmonized
light vehicles test procedure (WLTP) cycle for midsize cars, present time, French electricity mix, and European electricity mix as energy carrier
Best case 2nd best case Worst case

MHEV 48 V PHEV gasoline PHEV gasoline

ICE gasoline ICE diesel HEV gasoline EV EV+
gasoline (100% elec.) (100% thermic)
FR 6,13E-02 8,23E-02 1,17E-01
Climate Change (CC) kg CO2 eq 1,62E-01 1,40E-01 1,49E-01 1,31E-01 1,80E-01
EU 1,19E-01 1,49E-01 1,90E-01
FR 4,95E-08 5,31E-08 5,89E-08
Ozone Depletion (OD) kg CFC-11 eq 5,93E-08 5,62E-08 5,67E-08 5,24E-08 6,07E-08
EU 4,06E-08 4,29E-08 4,77E-08
FR 5,50E-05 9,01E-05 1,46E-04
Particulate Matter (PM) kg PM2.5 eq 5,18E-05 4,54E-05 5,32E-05 5,68E-05 7,73E-05
EU 7,79E-05 1,16E-04 1,75E-04
FR 1,33E-01 1,66E-01 2,00E-01
Ionizing Radiation HH kBq U235 eq 2,57E-02 2,41E-02 2,54E-02 2,44E-02 3,24E-02
(IR-HH) EU 8,04E-02 1,05E-01 1,34E-01
FR 1,92E-04 2,79E-04 4,26E-04
Photochemical Ozone kg NMVOC eq 3,11E-04 6,43E-04 3,07E-04 3,06E-04 3,84E-04
Formation (POF) EU 3,06E-04 4,10E-04 5,70E-04
FR 5,62E-04 1,08E-03 1,86E-03
Acidification (Ac) molc H+ eq 4,96E-04 6,98E-04 5,11E-04 5,37E-04 8,00E-04
EU 8,74E-04 1,44E-03 2,25E-03
FR 5,71E-04 7,55E-04 1,08E-03
Terrestrial Eutrophication molc N eq 7,82E-04 2,34E-03 7,81E-04 8,08E-04 9,86E-04
(Eu-terr.) EU 9,71E-04 1,22E-03 1,59E-03
FR 5,75E-05 1,12E-04 1,96E-04
Freshwater Eutrophication kg P eq 1,44E-05 1,35E-05 2,16E-05 3,81E-05 5,77E-05
(Eu-aq.) EU 1,27E-04 1,92E-04 2,83E-04
FR 2,66E-05 4,24E-05 7,27E-05
Mineral, fossil & ren kg Sb eq 1,66E-05 1,68E-05 1,83E-05 1,94E-05 2,63E-05
resource depletion (RD) EU 2,61E-05 4,19E-05 7,21E-05

owing to the very low carbon content of French electricity
production. The gliders have quite similar impacts between
the different vehicles studied regarding the CC indicator, ex-
cept for the HEV and PHEV, which have higher contributions
owing to the two internal motors (thermic and electric). The
production stage for both glider and battery accounts for be-
tween 65 and 79% of the global impact. Regarding the WTW
stage, its contribution is more significant for thermic vehicles
and low-electrified vehicles, e.g., MHEV and HEV, account-
ing for between 67 and 86% of the total impact.
For ODP (Fig. 3), PHEV (100% elec.) seems to be the best
candidate, whereas EV+ vehicles have quite the same impacts
as ICE gasoline vehicles. The vehicles’ production stages con-
tribute significantly to the ODP indicator, mostly owing to
refrigerant fluids. For thermic vehicles, the WTT stage im-
pacts are non-negligible, because of oil drilling. In regard to
electrified vehicles, the French electricity mix also has a con-
tribution to this indicator related to uranium production, which
is a major component of nuclear electricity production.
Regarding the total impacts for the ODP indicator, the results
are not so different from one powertrain to another, with a
slight advantage for electrified powertrains.
The PM emissions indicator (Fig. 4) reports the negative
effects on human health caused not only by primary particu-
late emissions and their precursors, but also gas-allowing par-
ticulate formations, i.e., so-called secondary particulates. It
appears that battery life cycles contribute to this impact and
that nickel is responsible for 25% of the impacts on the battery
life cycle. The circuit boards contribute to approximately 13%
of the impact. The emissions are related to metallurgy and
nickel refining (which emits sulfur dioxide), accounting for
this indicator. However, these emissions are not occurring
on-site, in regard to the vehicles’ use.
Regarding IR-HH (Fig. 5), it is highly understandable that
vehicles propelled by electricity vectors have higher impacts
related to electricity consumption. Indeed, the IR indicator
assesses the emissions of ionizing substances, which for
French electricity are contributed through its production,
which is mostly based on nuclear energy (and thus on urani-
um). The treatment of the residues produced by uranium ore
treatment is the main contributor to the impacts. The locations
of uranium mines are concentrated in the USA, Australia,
Canada, Namibia, and Nigeria. Emissions linked to uranium
are thus concentrated in these areas, leading to the question of
Int J Life Cycle Assess
global and local impacts, as was the case for the POF indica-
tor. Indeed, environmental indicators as IR, PM formation,
Ac, Eu-terr. and Eu-aq., or RD indicators can be analyzed as
local indicators, as contrasted with global warming potential
or ozone depletion indicators, which are global.
The results for POF (Fig. 6) vary significantly according to
the various powertrains. The PHEV (100% elec.) performs
much better than all other powertrains, but the EV also has
lower impacts than all thermic powertrains. Indeed, liquid
fossil fuels contain high quantities of volatile organic com-
pounds, whose combustion generates NOx. ICE diesel is the
worst candidate for this indicator, mostly owing to the TTW
stage, which for diesel engines emits NOx in higher quantities
than for gasoline engines. This is related to the RDE coeffi-
cient applied to the diesel engine, which will be removed for
future diesel engines. Notably, battery life cycle has an impor-
tant contribution to this indicator: a significant proportion of
the total impact of the EV+ for POF is generated by the battery
life cycle. It appears that the metals used for battery produc-
tion, such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, and copper, contribute to
approximately 45% of the batteries’ impact.
Batteries contribute significantly to the Ac potential indi-
cator (Fig. 7), leading to significant impacts for the EV and
EV+ that are linked to the battery size. Nickel is mostly re-
sponsible for the Ac impacts, i.e., 55% of the battery life cycle,
followed by copper (15%) and lithium (6%). These are chem-
ical products used to extract metals from ore, thereby emitting
sulfur dioxide into the air. The same trend is observed for the
Eu-aq. potential through old sulfur compound treatments. The
RD indicator follows the same ranking, with significant im-
pacts for vehicle and battery life cycles. For the vehicle life
cycle, it is mainly zinc, lead, aluminum, and the electric motor
when present that contribute to the impacts. Regarding the
battery life cycle, the circuit board has major contribution to
the impacts, and more precisely, the tantalum contained in the
capacitor.
Regarding Eu-terr. (Fig. 8), the PHEV (100% elec.) and
EV have lower impacts than the other powertrains. ICE diesel
has the highest impacts by far in comparison with the other
vehicles. The PHEV (100% thermic) and EV+ contribute
more to Eu-terr. than ICE gasoline or low-hybrid powertrains.
3.3 Passenger cars performing a WLTP driving cycle:
European electricity charging mix
A cautionary point regarding the electricity mix should be
raised. Indeed, France is a particular case, given its electricity
mix composition. Nuclear energy is the major component of
the French electricity mix and in its generation. This leads to
very low GHG emissions for the electricity sector in France.
However, the European mix is much more carbonated, and the
question regarding the inversion of trends related to electrifi-
cation is relevant. In particular, depending on the electricity
production means, i.e., nuclear, coal, and renewables, the en-
vironmental impacts generated by this energy vector could be
equal to or higher than those generated by more commonly
used energy pathways for vehicles, i.e., fossil liquid fuels. The
following part presents a sensitivity analysis with European
electricity mix, which increases the impacts of EVs on average
by 30% and those of EV+ by 20%. Notably, for the CC (Fig.
2) and POF (Fig. 6) indicators, the European electricity mix
reverses the previous trends with the French mix. The poten-
tial impacts on ODP (Fig. 3) are the only indicator for which
the European mix decreases the impacts. The use of the
European mix instead of the French mix has no effects on
the RD indicator (Fig. 10). In that regard, the interest in EVs
depends significantly on the electricity supply mix.
3.4 Passenger cars and buses performing an urban
driving cycle: French electricity charging mix
As we studied passenger transportation via passenger cars, we
also consider passenger transportation via buses. The detailed
results are available in Table 7, and in Figs. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, to Fig. 19.
To facilitate a comparison of passenger cars and buses, we
analyzed an urban driving cycle. Indeed, the perimeter of the
study is France, and bus network is mainly located in the
urban area. Thus, we analyze the ARTEMIS urban driving
cycle (André 2004) for passenger cars, and a ADEME-
Autonomous Parisian Transportation Administration
(RATP) cycle representative of an urban Parisian driving cy-
cle for buses (Coroller and Plassat 2003).
Given the high mileage traveled by the buses (40,000 km
per year over 12 years), the glider’s life cycle contribution to
the total impacts is proportionally lower than that for cars.
This is also true for the battery’s life cycle (Fig. 11). WTW
emissions are thus preponderant, and this again increases the
differences between the buses’ powertrains. In comparison
with cars, this leads to lower impacts for equivalent
powertrains. The buses’ hybridization represents a gain in
comparison with ICE bus for the indicators for which the
use stage is preponderant: neither Eu-aq. nor RD.
Depending on the indicator, a bus is not always the most
appropriate solution. Indeed, it appears that for the CC indi-
cator (Fig. 11), it is worth taking a PHEV car, rather than an
 Int J Life Cycle Assess

Table 7 Total potential environmental impacts for the selected indicators for the transportation of one person over 1 km for urban cycles for midsize
cars and bus, present time, and French electricity mix
Best case 2nd best case Worst case

Passenger car Bus

PHEV PHEV
ICE MHEV 48 HEV gasoline gasoline
ICE diesel EV EV+ ICE diesel Hybrid Electric
gasoline V gasoline gasoline (100% (100%
elec.) thermic)
Climate Change (CC) kg CO2 eq 2,11E-01 1,88E-01 1,79E-01 1,14E-01 5,64E-02 2,28E-01 7,96E-02 1,15E-01 1,18E-01 7,18E-02 2,19E-02
Ozone Depletion (OD) kg CFC-11 eq 6,78E-08 6,51E-08 6,20E-08 4,95E-08 4,56E-08 6,93E-08 5,09E-08 5,73E-08 2,38E-08 1,51E-08 1,17E-08
Particulate Matter (PM) kg PM2.5 eq 6,13E-05 5,27E-05 5,90E-05 5,36E-05 5,25E-05 8,67E-05 8,87E-05 1,45E-04 2,34E-05 1,75E-05 2,08E-05
Ionizing Radiation HH
kBq U235 eq 2,92E-02 2,76E-02 2,76E-02 2,32E-02 9,87E-02 3,60E-02 1,46E-01 1,86E-01 1,05E-02 7,31E-03 7,41E-02
(IR-HH)
Photochemical Ozone
kg NMVOC eq 3,65E-04 6,92E-04 3,40E-04 2,88E-04 1,81E-04 4,38E-04 2,73E-04 4,21E-04 1,82E-04 1,26E-04 6,84E-05
Formation (POF)
Acidification (Ac) molc H+ eq 6,02E-04 7,88E-04 5,76E-04 5,02E-04 5,34E-04 9,05E-04 1,06E-03 1,84E-03 2,76E-04 2,02E-04 2,47E-04
Terrestrial Eutrophication
molc N eq 9,07E-04 2,45E-03 8,58E-04 7,67E-04 5,32E-04 1,11E-03 7,33E-04 1,07E-03 5,00E-04 3,55E-04 1,89E-04
(Eu-terr.)
Freshwater Eutrophication
kg P eq 1,56E-05 1,44E-05 2,23E-05 3,77E-05 5,66E-05 5,89E-05 1,12E-04 1,95E-04 4,32E-06 6,96E-06 2,20E-05
(Eu-aq.)
Mineral, fossil & ren
kg Sb eq 1,68E-05 1,69E-05 1,84E-05 1,93E-05 2,63E-05 2,65E-05 4,23E-05 7,26E-05 5,71E-06 6,09E-06 1,04E-05
resource depletion (RD)

ICE bus. However, it is always better to take an electric bus If we compare the three studied buses, the electric bus
than a passenger car. performs better for the CC (Fig. 11), ODP (Fig. 12), POF
(Fig. 15), and Eu-terr. (Fig. 17) indicators.

Fig. 11 Potential impacts on climate change of one person transportation Fig. 12 Potential impacts on ozone depletion potential of one person
over 1 km for urban cycle for midsize cars and bus, present time, and transportation over 1 km for urban cycle for midsize cars and bus,
French electricity mix present time, and French electricity mix
Int J Life Cycle Assess

Fig. 13 Potential impacts on particulate matter emissions of one person Fig. 15 Potential impacts on photochemical ozone formation of one
transportation over 1 km for urban cycle for midsize cars and bus, present person transportation over 1 km for urban cycle for midsize cars and
time, and French electricity mix bus, present time, and French electricity mix

Fig. 14 Potential impacts on human health caused by ionizing radiation Fig. 16 Potential impacts on acidification of one person transportation
of one person transportation over one km for urban cycle for midsize cars over 1 km for urban cycle for midsize cars and bus, present time, and
and bus, present time, and French electricity mix French electricity mix

Fig. 17 Potential impacts on terrestrial eutrophication of one person
transportation over 1 km for urban cycle for midsize cars and bus,
present time, and French electricity mix
The results for PM emissions (Fig. 13) and Ac (Fig. 16) are
quite similar throughout the three buses’ powertrains.
Electric buses are worse for IR-HH (Fig. 14), Eu-aq.
(Fig. 18), and RD (Fig. 19).
Fig. 18 Potential impacts on aquatic eutrophication of one person
transportation over 1 km for urban cycle for midsize cars and bus,
present time, and French electricity mix
Int J Life Cycle Assess
Fig. 19 Potential impacts on resource depletion (mineral, fossil, and
renewables) of one person transportation over 1 km for urban cycle for
midsize cars and bus, present time, and French electricity mix
4 Discussion
In the context of growing electrification, this paper presents an
objective overview, based on LCA methodology, (ISO 2006a,
b) for seven current vehicles and three buses. As shown in the
previous sections, the determination of the best environmental
solution for the personal transportation sector is not trivial.
Indeed, our results show that the answer can differ according
to several parameters such as powertrains, driving conditions,
occupation rate, considered midpoints, and location.
GHG emissions are often spotlighted for electrified vehi-
cles—PHEV, EV—and the advantages of these powertrains
are clearly demonstrated based on this indicator, in a French
context. However, our study highlights that other important
environmental indicators such as PM emission, Ac, Eu-Ac,
and RD could be lower for non-electrified vehicles. As noted
throughout the paper, the indicators depend not only on the
above-quoted parameters such as powertrains, driving condi-
tions, and location, but also on methodological aspects in the
context of global and local indicators and consumer behavior.
Thus, among powertrains, the results can depend significantly
on the consumers. For example, if a PHEV is used with an
empty battery, it is entirely uncompetitive in terms of environ-
mental impacts. Indeed, a PHEV would have impacts from an
electrified powertrain with an equivalent of a conventional
gasoline vehicle consumption. This was the case in
Netherlands, where financial incentives for PHEVs were
Int J Life Cycle Assess
highly significant, until Dutch authorities measured the real
emissions of the Dutch PHEV fleet. The clear conclusion was
that in many cases, the thermic use led to significantly higher
emissions than officially announced, leading to the removal of
tax rebates (TNO 2016). This raises concerns regarding the
smart use of PHEVs and social behavior.
Driving conditions are also identified as a key parameter
throughout our results. Indeed, electrified vehicles—PHEV,
EV, and EV+—are less sensitive to traffic than thermic vehi-
cles—ICE, MEHV, and HEV—which are less competitive in
urban conditions, except for HEV. Indeed, the gaps between
electrified and ICE powertrains are higher in urban conditions.
Thus, it is tempting to enhance the use of electrified vehicles
for urban or congested areas, and it may be wise to adapt cars
offered to the consumer and their use. It is also important to
notice that the pollutant emissions during vehicle’s operation
are based on EURO norms calculated from the WLTP cycle.
These emissions might be underestimated for some pollutants
in urban traffic conditions and could be compared with other
models such as those developed by COPERT (European
Environment Agency) or the Handbook of Emission Factors
for Road Transport (INFRAS 2019).
The location context is also highly important, as it strongly
affects the environmental performances of electrified vehicles.
Our research shows that depending on a French location or
European location, the conclusions regarding electrification
deployment could differ. This raises a cautionary point regard-
ing massive and general electrification deployment, as the
electricity charging mix represents an important parameter to
consider.
With regard to methodological aspects, the environmental
performances per powertrain can vary from one midpoint to
another and the conclusions as well. For example, the rank-
ings of the studied powertrains are not comparable for global
warming potential and PM emissions. This raises two ques-
tions: the first regards endpoints and the second regards
weighting in general. Even if midpoint indicators have less
uncertainties than those at the endpoint level, midpoints anal-
ysis could be difficult and could lead to divergent conclusions
which would not be helpful for policy makers and/or con-
sumers (Bare et al. 2000).
The second question concerns the midpoint indicators, and
the non-differentiation between global and local indicators.
This is a very important matter, as we saw that results can
highly differ from one indicator to another and can lead to
inverse trends per environmental indicator. Thus, this question
also depends on the problem raised and the pursued goal of the
LCA. If the goal of electrification is to mitigate the effects of
the transport on human health, it would be wise to either
regionalize impacts, or at least to differentiate the impacts
occurring on the use site with others. This allowed us to see
the electrification potential, even for the PM indicator, and if
the emissions occur in a context where there is no human
exposure. Indeed, the only emissions occurring on the use site
are the TTW emissions and thus, the French electricity mix
generates very little PM during the combustion stage. PM
formation occurring during the battery life cycle stage would
not have an impact on the use site. However, batteries’ life
cycles will still have impacts on PM formation, but mostly in
regard to the metallurgical factory. This leads to questions
regarding the selected indicators, and in a wider way, to the
definition of the LCA indicator. Indeed, the midpoint indicator
for PM formation is defined to assess impacts on human
health. However, and especially for PM formation, the expo-
sure context and the population exposed are crucial (Humbert
et al. 2011). It could then be discussed whether to focus on this
indicator within a given geographical context.
Electric buses seem to be a very good alternative for urban
travels, whereas ICE buses are not always competitive (com-
pared with a PHEV car, for example). However, the direct
comparison between buses and passenger cars shall be taken
carefully as buses are a common travel solution and do not
optimize the traveling of one passenger where a passenger car
would. Thus buses’ impacts could be considered lower if all
the transported persons were traveling the same route.
Furthermore, this study does not consider the improvements
in human well-being from the decreased traffic when using
public transport rather than passenger vehicles. Indeed, be-
yond the fact that having an occupation rate below two for
individual cars for commuting, and thus having environmental
issues as described in this article seems very counterintuitive,
the car ownership itself also raises questions. Besides its cost
from the consumer side (Paulley et al. 2006), it generates also
noise, visual pollution, accident risks, and many other draw-
backs. It seems also that e-mobility concepts as car sharing,
between individuals or throughout industrial initiatives, tends
to increase (Bardhi and Eckhardt 2012) and could represent a
trend to the car ownership’s decrease. Thus, car sharing may
be a solution to increase car’s occupancy which might lower
the associated burdens of traveling by passenger cars. Public
policy could then consider ways to encourage this mode and
allow the achievement of ambitious sustainable goals.
Although not studied in this work, it seems that electric
buses, owing to battery weight, might not be able to contain
as many people as thermic buses. However, and as a first
approach, we believe that it is important to compare the sev-
eral alternatives without intentionally adding too many differ-
ent parameters, so as to be able to identify the improvement
possibilities. Thus, biofuels were not integrated into the fossil
fuels in this study, whereas current fuels delivered at the pump
contain a proportion of biofuel. These refinements will be
studied in an ongoing future work.

Concerning the RD indicator, which is a very important
issue when dealing with a battery, we believe that other indi-
cators assessing this depletion could be helpful for addressing
it. Indeed, we are convinced that the question of raw material
criticality should be put in perspective for a large-scale de-
ployment, in regard to both mass and geographic levels. The
resources issue should not be treated based only on an envi-
ronmental perspective, but should be fully assessed based on
economic, industrial, and geopolitical data, as addressed in
Hache et al. (2019). The issue of mineral resource location,
the increasing dependency of the states, and the actor strate-
gies (states or companies) should be studied for the energy
transition dynamic (World Bank Group 2017; OECD 2019;
Bonnet et al. 2018; IRENA 2019). All of these factors are
generally analyzed under a notion of criticality that covers
geopolitical risks (concentration of resources and or produc-
tion, embargo, etc.) and economic risks (market power, invest-
ment decisions, lack of financial contracts to hedge price vol-
atility, under-investment, etc.). The consideration of environ-
mental or social aspects (emissions of pollutants during the
production or trade process, health consequences, landscape
externalities, water needs etc.) has only recently been added to
the notion of criticality (Graedel et al. 2015). In addition to
this, the notion of criticality is neither universal, timeless, nor
binary (Bonnet et al. 2018). Indeed, it actually varies accord-
ing to the geographical scale being considered (lithium does
not appear in the European Commission’s list of critical ma-
terials, but is viewed as critical in the USA), the time scale
(chromium, magnesite, and phosphate rock were critical in the
European Commission list in 2014, but not in 2017), and the
consumer unit considered (country, sector, company, or tech-
nology). Ultimately, it depends on the economic (commercial,
financial), political (foreign policy, national security), and in-
dustrial interests of a state. The need to consider all the criti-
cality dimensions for each of the strategic materials as essen-
tial for the energy transition requires the development of spe-
cific quantification tools and appears to be fundamental for
researchers, manufacturers, and policy makers.
5 Conclusion
Using LCA methodology, we assess the different environ-
mental performances of seven types of passenger cars: ICE
gasoline, ICE diesel, MHEV 48-V gasoline, HEV gasoline,
PHEV gasoline, EV, and EV+. These vehicles were studied
on a WLTP cycle, with two simulations for PHEV (empty
battery and full battery). The first interest of our LCA ap-
proach is to demonstrate that among all of these powertrain
configurations, the EV and PHEV, with a fully charged bat-
tery, are competitive for several indicators in a French context
of use: global warming potential, ODP, POF, and Eu-terr. The
Int J Life Cycle Assess
best results are obtained for PHEV, for which the battery is
smaller.
The driving conditions interact directly with our results, as
we observe that the same passenger vehicles have different
impacts according to the WLTP cycle or urban driving cycle.
Indeed, vehicles using electricity as the energy carrier emit
less during urban driving cycles than those propelled with
liquid fossil fuels.
A sensitivity analysis for the electricity charging mix
for vehicles using electricity as the energetic vector
showed a strong influence on this parameter. Indeed, it
seems very important to perform specific assessments
for a given country or a given mix compositions, as we
saw that they significantly influence the results. In France,
the electricity mix is very low carbonated and EVs’ use
has all legitimacy. However, attention should be paid to
the capacity to deliver low carbonated electricity and if
the actual production could answer a future increasing
energy demand. Another specific attention concerns when
the EV’s charging occurs considering that electricity mix
varies across the day and the season.
This article also puts buses in perspective as compared with
urban driving cycle for passenger cars, as it appears to suggest
a possible evolution of the mobility sector in a more sustain-
able way. Electric buses seem to be the best solution for pas-
senger transportation. However, this result does not consider
the charging points’ development, the potential increase of the
fleet to be able to answer the needs during the charging times,
and all logistical issues related to such a deployment.
The present study confirms the strong dependence of
electro-mobility deployment on the battery market and tech-
nologies. The results for EV+ have significant impacts owing
to battery size, even for the previously quoted indicators
where EVs are competitive. In contrast, a PHEV used as an
ICE vehicle has no benefit from an environmental perspective
for those indicators and is worse than its thermic counterpart.
This highlights the problematic issues of consumer behavior
for a PHEV given this charging aspect, and the need to inte-
grate social sciences when launching public policy to promote
new technologies.
This study highlights the value of the multicriteria evalua-
tion provided by the LCA method in enriching the debate on
the future of vehicle engines, by studying the complete life
cycle for both vehicle and fuel use with simulated consump-
tions for all of the existing powertrains. A reduction in the
impacts on CC through the use of plug-in hybrid vehicles with
lighter batteries than EVs, even if well-managed, has impacts
on PM formation, IR, eutrophication, non-renewable RD, etc.
All these environmental criteria constitute many possible sub-
jects for further study in our research. Vehicle electrification
will not be the only solution to the decarbonization of light
vehicle transport. Other energy pathways should be
considered.
Int J Life Cycle Assess
The deployment of new mobility forms (urban car sharing
or self-service transport), intermodal approaches, and new ser-
vices (dynamic travel information, etc.) should constitute a
turning point in the future and should greatly impact the vehi-
cle technologies used. Analyzing this complete reshaping of
the mobility and the uncertainties regarding the adoption of
these new mobility forms should constitute the next step of
our research. By linking an LCA approach and a dynamic fleet
model including a heterogeneous consumer base, we can thus
contribute to improving our understanding of possible mobil-
ity futures, by considering environmental externalities in a
forward-looking perspective.
Acknowledgments The authors are very grateful to Maxime Pasquier
who initiated the project from ADEME side. We are also very grateful
to François Kalaydjian and Jerome Sabathier for insightful comments and
suggestions. Of course, any remaining errors are ours.
Funding information This study received the financial support of the
French Environment & Energy Management Agency (ADEME) within
a project dedicated to transport “E4T” (IFP Energies nouvelles and
ADEME 2018).
Compliance with ethical standards
Disclaimer The views expressed herein are strictly those of the authors
and are not to be construed as representing those of IFP Énergies
Nouvelles.
References
ADEME (2008) Review of materials recovery from obsolete vehicles’
treatment
ADEME (2017) Annual report of obsolete wheels and tires observatory
ADEME (2018) Annual report of obsolete vehicles observatory. 2016
data
Allacker K, Mathieux F, Pennington D, Pant R (2017) The search for an
appropriate end-of-life formula for the purpose of the European
Commission Environmental Footprint initiative. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 22(9):1441–1458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-
1244-0
André M (2004) The ARTEMIS European driving cycles for measuring
car pollutant emissions. Sci Total Environ 334-335:73–84. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.04.070
Badin F, Le Berr F, Briki H, Dabadie J, Petit M, Magand S, Condemine E
(2013) Evaluation of EVs energy consumption influencing factors,
driving conditions, auxiliaries use, driver's aggressiveness) . WEVJ
6(ISSN 2032-6653
Badin F, Berr F, Castel G, Dabadie J, Briki H, Degeilh P, Pasquier M
(2015) Energy efficiency evaluation of a plug-in hybrid vehicle
under European procedure, worldwide harmonized procedure and
actual use. WEVJ 7(3):475–488. https://doi.org/10.3390/
wevj7030475
Bardhi F, Eckhardt GM (2012) Access-based consumption. The case of
car sharing: table 1. J Consum Res 39(4):881–898. https://doi.org/
10.1086/666376
Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, de Haes HAU (2000) Midpoints
versus endpoints. The sacrifices and benefits. Int J Life Cycle Assess
5(6):319. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978665
Bauer C, Hofer J, Althaus H-J, Duce AD, Simons A (2015) The environ-
mental performance of current and future passenger vehicles. Life
cycle assessment based on a novel scenario analysis framework.
Appl Energy 157:871–883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.
2015.01.019
Bonnet C, Carcanague S, Hache E, Seck G, Simoen M (2018) Vers une
géopolitique de l'énergie plus complexe ? Une analyse prospective
tridimensionnelle de la transition énergétique
Brinkman N, Wang M, Weber T, Darlington T (2005) Well-to-wheels
analysis of advanced fuel/vehicle systems. A North American study
of energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and criteria pollutant
emissions
Chan CC (2007) The state of the art of electric, hybrid, and fuel cell
vehicles. Proc IEEE 95(4):704–718. https://doi.org/10.1109/
JPROC.2007.892489
Coroller P, Plassat G (ed) (2003) Comparative study on exhaust emis-
sions from diesel-and cng-powered urban buses
Da Costa A, Kim N, Le Berr F, Marc N, Badin F, Rousseau A (2012) Fuel
consumption potential of different plug-in hybrid vehicle architec-
tures in the European and American contexts. WEVJ 5(1):159–172.
https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj5010159
European Commission (2017) EU transport in figures. Statistical
pocketbook
European Commission (ed) (2018) Testing of emissions from cars
European Environment Agency (2019) Transport. https://www.eea.
europa.eu/themes/transport/intro. Accessed 27 Feb 2019
European Environment Agency Road Transport Guide Book European
Environment Agency (2008) Occupancy rates. https://www.eea.
europa.eu/downloads/0c1c4a6acf289ffdefa1876ea5d60f07/
1461081880/page029.html.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2019
Frischknecht R, Braunschweig A, Hofstetter P, Suter P (2000) Human
health damages due to ionising radiation in life cycle impact assess-
ment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20(2):159–189. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0195-9255(99)00042-6
Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H-J, Doka G, Dones R, Heck T,
Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M
(2005) The ecoinvent database. Overview and methodological
framework (7 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(1):3–9. https://doi.
org/10.1065/lca2004.10.181.1
General Commissioner for Sustainable Development (2016) Twenty five
years of internal transportation of passengers. n°148
Gerrard J, Kandlikar M (2007) Is European end-of-life vehicle legislation
living up to expectations? Assessing the impact of the ELV
Directive on ‘green’ innovation and vehicle recovery. J Clean Prod
15(1):17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.06.004
Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van
Zelm R (2008) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method
which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint
and the endpoint level. First edition Report I: Characterisation
Graedel TE, Harper EM, Nassar NT, Nuss P, Reck BK (2015) Criticality
of metals and metalloids. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112(14):4257–
4262. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1500415112
Guinée JB (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide
to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht
Hache E, Seck G, Simoen M, Bonnet C, Carcanague S (2019) Critical
raw materials and transportation sector electrification: A detailed
bottom-up analysis in world transport. Appl Energy:240. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.02.057
Hao H, Mu Z, Jiang S, Liu Z, Zhao F (2017) GHG emissions from the
production of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles in China.
Sustain 9(4):504. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040504
Hawkins TR, Singh B, Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH (2013)
Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional
and electric vehicles. J Ind Ecol 17(1):53–64. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x

Huang J, Levinson DM (2015) Circuity in urban transit networks. J
Transp Geogr 48:145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.
09.004
Humbert S, Marshall JD, Shaked S, Spadaro JV, Nishioka Y, Preiss P,
McKone TE, Horvath A, Jolliet O (2011) Intake fraction for partic-
ulate matter. Recommendations for life cycle impact assessment.
Environ Sci Technol 45(11):4808–4816. https://doi.org/10.1021/
es103563z
ICCT (ed) (2014) The WLTP: how a new test procedure for cars will
affect fuel consumption values in the EU. Working paper
IFP Energies nouvelles, ADEME (2018) Bilan transversal de l’impact de
l’électrification par segment – ADEME. https://www.ademe.fr/
bilan-transversal-limpact-lelectrification-segment. Accessed 19
Apr 2019
INFRAS (2019) HBEFA 4.1. Development report
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. [a report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change]. IPCC, Geneva
IRENA (2019) A new world: the geopolitics of the energy transformation
ISO (2006a) Environmental management - life cycle assessment - princi-
ples and framework 13.020.60(14040:2006). Accessed 19 Jun 2018
ISO (2006b) Environmental management - life cycle assessment - re-
quirements and guidelines 13.020.10 ; 13.020.60(14044:2006).
Accessed 04 Feb 2019
JEC - Joint Research Center-EUCAR-CONCAWE collaboration (2014)
Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrain
in the European context. Description, results and input data per
pathway. WTT_Appendix_4_v4a_APRIL2014
JRC - European Commission (2012) Recommendations for life cycle
impact assessment in the European context. - based on existing
environmental impact assessment models and factors, First edition.
Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Kanari N, Pineau J-L, Shallari S (2003) End-of-life vehicle recycling in
the European union. JOM 55(8):15–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11837-003-0098-7
Kim HC, Wallington TJ, Arsenault R, Bae C, Ahn S, Lee J (2016)
Cradle-to-gate emissions from a commercial electric vehicle li-ion
battery: a comparative analysis. Environ Sci Technol 50(14):7715–
7722. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00830
Loisel R, Pasaoglu G, Thiel C (2014) Large-scale deployment of electric
vehicles in Germany by 2030. An analysis of grid-to-vehicle and
vehicle-to-grid concepts. Energ Policy 65:432–443. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.029
Lombardi L, Tribioli L, Cozzolino R, Bella G (2017) Comparative envi-
ronmental assessment of conventional, electric, hybrid, and fuel cell
powertrains based on LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(12):1989–
2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1294-y
Majeau-Bettez G, Hawkins TR, Strømman AH (2011) Life cycle envi-
ronmental assessment of lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride bat-
teries for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. Environ Sci
Technol 45(10):4548–4554. https://doi.org/10.1021/es103607c
Marc N, Prada E, Sciarretta A, Anwer S, Vangraefschepe F, Badin F,
Charlet A, Higelin P (2010) Sizing and fuel consumption evaluation
methodology for hybrid light duty vehicles. WEVJ 4(2):249–258.
https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj4020249
Meyer I, Kaniovski S, Scheffran J (2012) Scenarios for regional passen-
ger car fleets and their CO2 emissions. Energ Policy 41:66–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.043
Ministry for Ecological and Solidarity Transition (2014) Panorama of
waste generation in France
Nemry F, Brons M (2010) Plug-in hybrid and battery electric. Market
penetration scenarios of electric drive vehicles. JRC Technical
Notes. Draft technical note JRC-IPTS
Nemry F, Leduc G, Mongelli I, Uihlein A (2008) Environmental im-
provement of passenger cars (IMPRO-car). EUR. Scientific and
technical research series, vol 23038. Publications Office,
Luxembourg
Int J Life Cycle Assess
Nemry F, Vanherle K, Zimmer W, Uihlein A, Genty A, Rueda-Cantuche
J-M, Mongelli I, Neuwahl F, Delgado L, Hacker F, Seum S, Buchert
M, Schade W (2009) Feebate and Scrappage policy instruments.
Environmental and economic impacts for the EU27, EUR 23896
EN. EUR. Scientific and technical research series, vol 23896.
OPOCE, Luxembourg
Nicholson AL, Olivetti EA, Gregory JR, Field FR, Kirchain RE (2009)
End-of-life LCA allocation methods: open loop recycling impacts
on robustness of material selection decisions. Inst Electr Electron
Eng:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSST.2009.5156769
Nordelöf A, Messagie M, Tillman A, Ljunggren Söderman M, van
Mierlo J (2014) Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid,
and battery electric vehicles—what can we learn from life cycle
assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(11):1866–1890. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11367-014-0788-0
Notter DA, Gauch M, Widmer R, Wäger P, Stamp A, Zah R, Althaus H-J
(2010) Contribution of Li-ion batteries to the environmental impact
of electric vehicles. Environ Sci Technol 44(17):6550–6556. https://
doi.org/10.1021/es903729a
OECD (2019) Global material resources outlook to 2060 : Economic
drivers and environmental consequences, OCDE, Paris
OMNIL (2011) Numbers for public transportation
Paulley N, Balcombe R, Mackett R, Titheridge H, Preston J, Wardman
M, Shires J, White P (2006) The demand for public transport. The
effects of fares, quality of service, income and car ownership. Transp
Policy 13(4):295–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.12.
004
PE International AG and Gingko 21 (2013) Elaboration selon les
principes des ACV des bilans énergétiques, des émissions de GES
et des autres impacts environnementaux induits par l’ensemble des
filières de véhicules électriques et de véhicules thermiques, VP de
segment B (citadine polyvalente) et VUL à l’horizon 2012 et 2020.
Etude réalisée pour le compte de l’ADEME
Peters JF, Baumann M, Zimmermann B, Braun J, Weil M (2017) The
environmental impact of Li-ion batteries and the role of key param-
eters – a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 67:491–506. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.039
Posch M, Seppälä J, Hettelingh J-P, Johansson M, Margni M, Jolliet O
(2008) The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem
sensitivity in the determination of characterisation factors for acidi-
fying and eutrophying emissions in LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess
13(6):477–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0025-9
Rabl, A. and Spadaro, J.V. (2004). The RiskPoll software, version is
1.051. www.arirabl.com. Accessed Aug 2004
Romare M, Dahllöf L (2017) The life cycle energy consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions from lithium-ion batteries. A Study with
Focus on Current Technology and Batteries for light-duty vehicles
Sadek N (2012) Urban electric vehicles. A contemporary business case.
Eur Transp Res Rev 4(1):27–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-
011-0061-6
Schmidt W-P, Dahlqvist E, Finkbeiner M, Krinke S, Lazzari S,
Oschmann D, Pichon S, Thiel C (2004) Life cycle assessment of
lightweight and end-of-life scenarios for generic compact class pas-
senger vehicles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(6):405–416. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF02979084
Scholl L, Schipper L, Kiang N (1996) CO2 emissions from passenger
transport. A comparison of international trends from 1973 to 1992.
Energ Policy 24(1):17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(95)
00148-4
Seppälä J, Posch M, Johansson M, Hettelingh J-P (2006) Country-
dependent characterisation factors for acidification and terrestrial
eutrophication based on accumulated exceedance as an impact cat-
egory indicator (14 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):403–416.
https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2005.06.215
Sharma R, Manzie C, Bessede M, Crawford RH, Brear MJ (2013)
Conventional, hybrid and electric vehicles for Australian driving
Int J Life Cycle Assess
conditions. Part 2. Life cycle CO2-e emissions. Transport Res C
Emerg Technol 28:63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2012.12.011
Spielmann M, Bauer C, Dones R, Tuchsmid M (2007) Transport services.
Ecoinvent report n°14, Dübendorf
Szczechowicz E, Dederichs T, Schnettler A (2012) Regional assessment
of local emissions of electric vehicles using traffic simulations for a
use case in Germany. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(9):1131–1141.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0425-8
The Commission of the European Communities (1999) Regulation (EEC)
No 4064/89 about the Case No IV/M.1406 – HYUNDAI / KIA
The Commission of the European Communities (2008) Commission
Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 implementing and amending
Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of
the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to
emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5
and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance infor-
mation. In: Off J Eur Union, L 199:1–135
The Council of the European Communities (1970) Council Directive on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
measures to be taken against air pollution by gases from positive-
ignition engines of motor vehicles. In: Off J Eur Union, L 76:171–
191
The European Parliament and the Council (2000) Directive 2000/53/EC
on end-of life vehicles. In: Off J Eur Communities, L 269:34–43
The European Parliament and the Council (2005) Directive 2005/64/EC
on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to their reusabil-
ity, recyclability and recoverability and amending Council Directive
70/156/EEC. In: Off J Eur Union, L 310:11–27
The European Parliament and the Council (2006) Directive 2006/66/EC
on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators
and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC. In: Off J Eur Union, L 266:1–
13
The European Parliament and the Council (2009) Regulation setting
emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of
the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions
from light-duty vehicles. Regulation (EC) No 443/2009
The European Parliament and the Council (2014) Regulation (EU) No
333/2014 amending regulation (EC) No 443/2009 to define the mo-
dalities for reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO2 emissions from
new passenger cars. In: Off J Eur Union L 103:15–21
The French Ministry for Ecological and Solidarity Transition (2009)
Decree regarding the registration of the vehicles. In: Off J Fr
Repub 1–33
The French Ministry for Ecological and Solidarity Transition (2017)
Decree regarding aid management for the purchase and the renting
of low-emission vehicles. In: Off J Fr Repub, No 0305: 1–4
TNO (2016) Supporting analysis on real-world light-duty vehicle CO2
emissions. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/transport/
vehicles/docs/analysis_ldv_co2_emissions_en.pdf. Accessed 27
Feb 2019
Tran M, Banister D, Bishop JDK, McCulloch MD (2012) Realizing the
electric-vehicle revolution. Nat Clim Chang 2(5):328–333. https://
doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1429
United Nations (2017) World population prospects. The 2017 revision.
Key findings and advance tables, ES/P/WP/248
van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, den Hollander HA, van Jaarsveld HA,
Sauter FJ, Struijs J, van Wijnen HJ, van de Meent D (2008)
European characterization factors for human health damage of
PM10 and ozone in life cycle impact assessment. Atmos Environ
42(3):441–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.09.072
WBCSD (2001) Mobility 2001. World Mobility at the End of the
Twentieth Century and Its Sustainability
World Bank Group (2017) The growing role of minerals and metals for a
low carbon future
World Meteorological Organization (1999) Scientific assessment of
ozone depletion. WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring
Project - Report No. 44. Geneva, 1998
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.